Mother, Child, And Abortion

Advice to Kamala Harris on Mother, Child, and Abortion. Abortion 6

“I will do everything in my power to unite the Democratic Party and the Nation!” said Kamala Harris upon hearing that President Joe Biden had endorsed her. Well, how will she accomplish this? What advice to Kamala Harris is warranted? Here is the first thing to do: publically affirm together “mother, child, and abortion.” Women’s access to reproductive health care? Yes, indeed! But more.

Mother, child, and abortion. These three intermingle kinetically like a burger, fries, and slushie. They’re naturally served together on a single tray. If we ingest one, we’re confident the other two will come next. My advice to Kamala Harris: put mother, child, and abortion together on the menu.

What’s the Problem?

Thus far during this 2024 presidential election cycle, we’re starving to get these served together. The Republicans delete the woman. The Democrats delete the child. What should we do?

I plead with the Democrats to alter their rhetoric to put all three – mother, child, and abortion — on their political tray. Democrats already effervesce with support for a woman’s right to choose and for her access to reproductive health care. Hooray! Could we add a concern for the welfare of the unborn child? If so, I bet numerous Republican voters who now feel shut out might join the Democratic cause.

Every person already committed to reproductive rights knows that the Democratic Party represents their commitment. They know whom to vote for. Perhaps the Democrats could add to their tally a large number of undecided voters now caught in the middle between the extremists.

Let me explain.

Thanks to Democrats and to Republicans

First, I would like to thank the Democrats for their vigilant protection of a woman’s right to choose and for supporting a women’s access to reproductive health care. “Joe Biden and I are fighting in court to protect women’s access to medication and emergency care,” declared Vice President Kamala Harris on repeated occasions. “We strengthened the patient privacy protections so that medical records stay between a woman and her doctor. And we are protecting the right of women to travel for abortion care.”

Second, I would like to thank the Republicans for reminding us that the helpless unborn child needs an advocate. Republicans are asking whether or when a second life growing within a woman’s body deserves to be treated with protective dignity. This remains an important question even if the slogan, “pro-life,” is anachronistic and about to be abandoned.

Project 2025, like the Vatican, dates morally protectable dignity of the unborn child at the moment of conception.

“From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities” (Heritage 2023, 449).

Project 2025 also advocates “explicitly rejecting the notion that abortion is health care” (Heritage 2023, 489). Such positions taken by Project 2025 are so extreme that it’s unlikely middle of the road people will travel this route. If the Democratic campaign could widen its reproductive highway, it just might entice more traffic.

Does “pro-unborn child” absolutely forbid pregnancy termination?

Does this philosophical position regarding “moment of conception” require proscriptions against abortion in all cases? Not necessarily. In both Democratic and Republican camps, pro-lifers among us ask for permission to abort when the health of the mother is at stake. Or rape. Or incest. Or other dire circumstances. Or prior to the third trimester. Many Republicans are not locked into the most draconian of options. Might they be persuaded to vote Democratic?

But, we’re in a dilemma.

The unneeded self-censorship Democrats have imposed on themselves is to ignore even mentioning the unborn child. The only subject to be addressed, if you’re a Democrat, is the woman. If we ask about the welfare of the unborn child, we are shut up and shut out by Democratic rhetoric. Is this necessary? No, I don’t think so.

On the other side of the street, the unnecessary and even cruel position taken by draconian Republicans supported by Project 2025 amounts to a sacrifice of the woman’s rights and health when defending an unviable pregnancy. The tragedy of the Kate Cox case in Texas and the uninformed silliness of the Alabama Supreme Court ruling on IVF embryos betray how unthought through is the Republican Party philosophy regarding abortion restriction.

Advice to Kamala Harris? Democrats need not hold their current extremist and exclusivist position. There is room not only for personal sympathies for the unborn child, but also for religious considerations. “And let us all agree, says Kamala Harris , “one does not have to abandon their faith or deeply held beliefs to agree the government should not be telling her what to do with her body. If she chooses, she will consult her pastor, her priest, her rabbi, her imam, but not the government telling her what to do.”

Further Thinking through Mother, Child, and Abortion

In the first two posts within this Patheos series, Are frozen embryos really children? and Protecting Embryos in the Vatican, I tried to show how for both scientific and theological reasons we should not locate morally protectable human dignity at the moment of conception. This is the case whether conception happens within the woman’s body, in vivo, or in a laboratory petri dish, ex vivo. There is no moral culpability when an IVF clinic discards unimplanted embryos.

If not at conception, then when? I believe we should earnestly address this question. Providing a reasonable answer that draws from both scientific knowledge and theological discernment might put mother, child, and abortion back again on the same political tray.

India: Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amdendment) Bill (2020)

What might we learn about mother, child, and abortion by looking at the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Bill (2020) in India? The Bill allows abortion to be done on the advice of one doctor up to 20 weeks, and two doctors in the case of certain categories of women between 20 and 24 weeks. This seems reasonable, does it not?

Time since conception	Requirement for terminating pregnancy
		MTP (Amendment) Bill, 2020
Up to 12 weeks		Advice of one doctor
12 to 20 weeks		Advice of one doctor
20 to 24 weeks		Two doctors for some categories of pregnant women
More than 24 weeks		Medical Board in case of substantial foetal abnormality
Any time during the pregnancy	One doctor, if immediately necessary to save pregnant woman’s life

News Flash: Ellyannah Lopez born at only 26 weeks

In May 2023, Ellyannah Lopez was born 26 weeks after conception. At birth she weighed only 12 ounces. She needed to eat. And to grow. In March 2024 she weighed 17 pounds and was permitted to go home from Cedars-Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles with her family. Might the 24 week threshold make sense? We could draw a line at 24 weeks, prior to which pregnancy termination by choice is permitted and after which a physician’s prescription would be required. Might candidate Harris absorb this ammendment to her current position?

News Flash: Trump’s Evangelical Supporters Just Lost Their Best Excuse

Writing in The Atlantic, Paul Wehner tells us that voters cannot trust Donald Trump to remain committed to pro-life. Trump may switch mid-stream to pro-choice.

But the pro-life justification for supporting Trump has just collapsed. Trump, who described himself as “strongly pro-choice” in the 1990s—including support for so-called partial-birth abortion—has returned to his socially liberal ways. “My Administration will be great for women and their reproductive rights.”

In short, evangelicals who lose faith in Trump are ready to hear some modicum of sympathy for their respect for the unborn coming from the Democrats.

Pre-Conclusion

Since the era of Roe v. Wade in the USA, many have asked “when life begins” within a pregnancy. This is too vague. What we should ask philosophically, I propose, is this: when does the dignity of the unborn child become morally protectable, thereby proscribing abortion?

When does the unborn gain morally protectable dignity?

Unfortunately, nature does not draw a bright red line for us. Gestation of the embryo becoming a child is a process with no absolutely defined stages. Even so, we intuitively sense that the choice to terminate a pregnancy seems morally acceptable at the early stages and less morally acceptable in the final stages. In posts in this series on abortion, I would like to explore what sound moral judgment can offer to those making public policy.

What we have now in our political rhetoric is high speed traffic going in separate directions. Speeding in one direction are the Democrats who support reproductive liberty. Democrats do not mention the unborn child, leaving abortion practice with no restrictions of any sort.

Speeding in the opposite direction are extremist MAGA Republicans who advocate draconian proscriptions against abortion. This has resulted in insane medical practices that have become cruel and uncaring toward the pregnant woman.

Caught in the medium of the public debate highway are those with sympathies for both the woman and the child. If the Democrats could open their rhetoric to include these three – mother, child, and abortion – perhaps those in the middle — those supporting early elective abortion yet proscribing late term abortion — could thumb a ride with Democrats into the election tally.

That’s my advice to Kamala Harris.

Patheos SR 5106. Abortion 6. Advice to Kamala Harris on Mother, Child, and Abortion

PT 3247 Anti-Anti-Christian Nationalism, Part 1

PT 3248 Anti-Anti-Christian Nationalism, Part 2

PT 3249 Anti-Anti-Christian Nationalism, Part 3

▓

Ted Peters pursues Public Theology at the intersection of science, religion, ethics, and public policy. Peters is an emeritus professor at the Graduate Theological Union, where he co-edits the journal, Theology and Science, on behalf of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, in Berkeley, California, USA. His book, God in Cosmic History, traces the rise of the Axial religions 2500 years ago. He tackled the implications of genetic innovation for the future of humanity in Playing God? Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom? (Routledge, 2^nd ed., 2002) as well as For the Love of Children: Genetic Technology and the Future of the Family (Westminster/John Knox 1997). His essays are collected in Science, Theology, and Ethics (Ashgate 2003) The Voice of Public Theology (ATF 2023).

Recently Ted edited AI and IA: Utopia or Extinction? (ATF 2019). Along with Arvin Gouw and Brian Patrick Green, he co-edited the new book, Religious Transhumanism and Its Critics hot off the press (Roman and Littlefield/Lexington, 2022). His fictional spy thriller, Cyrus Twelve, follows the twists and turns of a transhumanist plot.

Visit Ted Peters’ website, TedsTimelyTake.com.

▓